Skip to main content

Full text of "The Confusion of the Indirect Question and the Relative Clause in Latin"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


By A. P. BbXunlich 

It has often been observed that the indirect question and the 
relative clause are sometimes indistinguishable in Latin. 1 Examples 
like Plautus Amph. 133, " Quae illi ad legionem facta sunt memorat 
pater Meus Alcumenae," are common enough in the Latin of all 
periods. In these examples it is a matter of indifference whether the 
dependent clauses be regarded as indirect questions or as determina- 
tive relative clauses. 2 It is not so generally recognized that the 
indirect question and the relative clause were sometimes actually- 
confused. Yet instances of such confusion do occur in the writings 
that have come down to us. See, for example, Cicero Phil. ii. 21. 50: 
"Accipite nunc, quaeso, non ea quae ipse in se atque in domesticum 
decus impure et intemperanter, sed quae in nos fortunasque nostras, 
id est in universa'm rem publicam, impie ac nefarie fecerit." "Ea 
quae .... fecerit" is apparently a contamination of "ea quae 
.... fecit" (determinative relative clause) and "quae .... 
fecerit" (indirect question). 

Such examples, though not numerous, are interesting in their 
bearing upon text-criticism. Because of failure to recognize this 
kind of confusion, "emendations" have sometimes been suggested 
or actually adopted. So for the passage just cited Campe proposed a 
change of fecerit to fecit. "Ich bin der Ansicht," he declares, "dass 
man sich in diesen Dingen ein Herz fassen .... sollte." 3 Of 
Verres Actio II, iii. 40. 92 (cited p. 63) C. F. W. Mueller remarks: 
"Miror nemini in mentem venisse .... sic corrigere: Audite lit- 
teras quas misit"; and of Phil. xiv. 3. 9 (cited p. 71) he says that 

1 Cf., e.g., Kroll, "Der lateinische Relativsatz," Glotta, III (1910-12), p. 5. 

s The determinative clause is "the clause which points out what person or thing 
is meant." Cf. Hale, The Cum-Constructions (Ithaca, New York, 1887), p. 85, German 
translation (Leipzig, 1891), p. 94; Hale-Buck, Latin Grammar (Boston, 1903), p. 260, 
n. 1, and p. 294, n. 1. 

a "Zu Cicero," Philologus, X (1885), p. 631. 
[Classical Philoloqy XIII, January, 1918] 60 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 61 

Ernesti changes eaque to atque "recte ut videtur." 1 In De Div. 
i. 38. 82 (cited p. 70) Mueller reads sunt in place of sint. " Nirgends," 
he says, " kann ein abhangiger Satz, der halb nach einer Frage, halb 
nach einem Relativsatz aussieht, unzweideutig zum ertsen gemacht 
werden, indem man ein vorhergehendes einfaches Pron. dem., auf 
welches sich das Relativum bezoge, streicht. Man sagt nicht id 
quod oder id quid gestum sit scio, wenn nicht etwa bei dem letzten 
Beispiel id so viel sein soil wie tantum, also im Plural: id scio, quae 
gesta sint." 2 

Although the confusion of the indirect question and the relative 
clause has been noticed by a number of scholars, 3 the examples have 
never been collected. In the hope that such a collection might 
have some influence toward establishing a more conservative attitude 
toward our Latin texts, I have brought together all the instances 
that I could find. 4 The collection does not pretend to be complete. 
Doubtless a prolonged search, through manuscripts as well as editions, 
would reveal more instances. The collection includes clear examples 
of confusion and also examples in which the use of the subjunctive 
mood may possibly be otherwise accounted for. The various possi- 
bilities of interpretation are mentioned. Manuscript variations that 
are given in the standard editions are reported. 

1 Critical note on Cic. Rose. Am. 34. 95 (ed. of Cicero's works [1893-98], Part II, 
Vol. I, p. 62, line 8). 

• Review of Baiter-Halm, N.J. fUr Phil. u. Paed., LXXXIX (1864), p. 629. 

>By Hofmann-Andresen, "Ausgewahlte Briefe" of Cicero (2d ed., 1885), on 
Fam. xi. 28. 2; Bonnet, Le Latin de Gr&goire de Tours (Paris, 1890), p. 676, n. 3; 
Kraner-Dittenberger, ed. Caesar, Bellum Gatticum (1890), on vii. 3. 3; Sargeaunt, 
ed. Phormio (1914), on vs. 845. 

Kroll, op. cit., pp. 4 ff., suggests that Trin. 373, "Scin tu ilium quo genere gnatus 
sit," may show confusion of the indirect question and the relative clause. He thinks 
that the sentence arose by contamination of " Scin tu ilium (:) quo genere gnatus est ? " 
and "Scin tu quo ille genere gnatus sit?" and remarks: "Hier mag der erstere Typus 
friihzeitig als Relativsatz empfunden sein, wenn er es auch ursprunglich nicht war" 
(p. 5). I see no reason for regarding Trin. 373 as anything else than an indirect ques- 
tion with prolepsis (for prolepsis see below, p. 64, n. 1). Furthermore, in Kroll's 
imaginary example with the indicative mood, "quo .... est" would seems 
to me, be felt as a relative clause. Quo genere cannot refer to ilium as an antecedent; 
and to supply eo genere would not be natural. 

• Some of the examples are taken from Mueller's review of Baiter-Halm (see 
above, n. 2) and cross-references in the critical notes of Mueller's edition of Cicero; 
Hofmann-Andresen on Fam. xi. 28. 2; Ftigner, Lexicon Livianum (Leipzig, 1897), 
s.v. audio; Schmalz, Lateinische Syntax (4th ed., Munich, 1910), p. 658. The rest 
have been gathered in the course of my own reading of Latin authors. 

62 A. F. Braunlich 


Cic. Phil. ii. 21. 50: 

Accipite nunc, quaeso, non ea quae ipse in se atque in domesticum 
decus impure et intemperanter, sed quae in nos fortunasque nostras, id 
est in universam rem publicam, impie ac nefarie fecerit. 

Cic. Rep. i. 13. 19: 

Ain vero, Phile, iam explorata nobis sunt ea quae ad domos nostras 
quaeque ad rem publicam pertineant ? Siquidem, quid agatur in caelo 

pertinent m. I, and most editors (but not Mueller). Skutsch, in 
Glotta, III (1912), thinks that the rhythm proves that the indicative 
is right. But see below, p. 73. 
Cic. Be. Orat. ii. 39. 166: 

Et causas rerum vestigabimus, et ea quae ex causa orta sint, et 
maiora paria minora quaeremus. 

sunt L. 

A little later, in 40. 171, this passage is picked up in the words: "Ex 
iis autem quae sunt orta de causis." In the latter passage there is no 
possibility of confusion with the indirect question; and the indicative, 
the regular mood of the determinative clause of fact, is employed. 
Cic. Fam. iii. 10. 11: 

Nunc ea quae a me profecta quaeque instituta sint, cognosce. 

sint M, Mendelssohn, Mueller; sunt G R, Baiter, Wesenbach, 
Tyrrell-Purser (1890). 

Caelius in Cic. Fam. viii. 13. 1 : 

Non est enim pugnax in vitiis neque hebes ad id quod melius sit 

melius sit M H 3 , Mueller; est Wesenbach, Tyrrell-Purser. The 
Tyrrell-Purser edition (1890) comments: "The ordinary reading, 
melius sit, probably arose from meliust; no account can be given of 
the subjunctive." 

Author of Varro R.R. Capitula Libri Primi (Goetz, p. 3) : 
De eis quae extra fundum commoda fiant aut incommoda. 
fiant V B; fiunt A, Victorinus, Goetz. 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 63 

Author of Varro R.R. Capitula Libri Primi (Goetz, p. 4) : 
De eis quae seri oporteat et quare legumina appellentur. 

appellantur A. 

In all of the foregoing passages the natural meaning of ea quae or 
id quod is "the things which" or "that which" (determinative). To 
account for the subjunctive by interpreting "things which" or "a 
thing which" (descriptive 1 ) would be forced. Similarly in the 
examples of Classes II and III, given below, to interpret the depend- 
ent clauses as descriptive is either impossible or unnatural. 


A. Antecedent and pronoun are both objects: 
Cic. Yen. Act. II, iii. 40. 92: 

Audite litteras quas ad Segestanos miserit. Litterae C. Verris. 
Cic. Leg. Manil. 13. 38: 

Itinera quae per hosce annos in Italia per agros atque oppida civium 
Romanorum nostri imperatores fecerint, recordamini. 

B. Antecedent an object; pronoun a subject: 
Cic. Leg. Agr. I. 8. 25: 

Cum vero scelera consiliorum vestrorum fraudemque legis et 
insidias, quae ipsi populo Romano a popularibus tribunis plebis fiant, 
ostendero, pertimescam, credo, ne mihi non liceat contra vos in contione 

C. Antecedent an object; pronoun neither subject nor object: 

Ter. AM. 572: 

At nomen nescio 
Illius hominis, sed locum novi ubi sit. 

The first two examples of Class II have sometimes been under- 
stood as indirect questions with an unusual word-order. Thus 
Richter (ed. 1871) and Deuerling (ed. 1884) explain the order in 
Leg. Manil. as emphatic. Sure examples of indirect questions with 
such word-order occur in Plautus: Bacch. 891, "lam dudum hercle 
equidem sentio suspicio Quae te sollicitet"; Aul. 778; Cure. 321. 
There seems to be no sure example in Cicero. Commentators on our 

1 For the descriptive clause of fact, with the subjunctive mood, cf. Hale, Cum- 
Constructions, pp. 88 ff., German translation, pp. 98 ff.; Hale-Buck, Latin Grammar, 
5 521, 1. 

64 A. F. Beaunlich 

Leg. Manil. passage refer to Leg. Manil. 2. 6, "Causa quae sit videtis." 
However, this passage is not parallel. In "Causa quae sit," causa is 
the subject, and quae is in the predicate. In the present passages, 
quae and quas would modify the nouns. Mueller finds the Verres 
passage difficult, as is shown by his suggested emendation (cf. p. 60). 
All the passages of Class II might conceivably be explained as 
indirect questions with prolepsis or pleonasm. 1 In B the subject of 
the indirect question would be "anticipated" as the object of the 
main verb. (Cf., as a typical instance of prolepsis, Men. 519, 
"Uxori rem omnem iam ut sit gesta eloquar.") In A there would be 
an unusual (and, so far as I know, unrecognized 2 ) sort of prolepsis. 
Not the subject, but the object, of the indirect question would be 
anticipated. Leg. Manil. would be interpreted: "Remember the 
marches, viz., what marches our generals have made." In C Ter. 
Adel. may conceivably be an indirect question with pleonasm. 3 
Locum, that is, may pleonastically express the idea of place which is 
contained in ubi sit. The interpretation would be, "I know the 
place, viz., where he is." Still, especially for A and C, it seems over- 
subtle to speak of prolepsis or pleonasm. The difference in feeling 
between "Itinera, quae .... fecerint," for example, and "Itinera 
quae .... fecerunt" must have been, at the most, extremely 
slight. If there is not, in these examples, actual confusion between 
indirect question and relative clause, at any rate the indirect ques- 
tion approaches suspiciously near to the function of the relative 


In the following examples, more easily than in the preceding ones, 
the dependent clauses may be understood as indirect questions, with 
prolepsis or pleonasm. However, these examples, too, may show 
confusion of the indirect question and the relative clause. 

1 For pleonasm and prolepsis, cf . Lindskog, Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi 
apud Priscos Latinos (Lund, 1896), pp. 69 ff. and 75 ff. 

» Tincani, in his edition of Leg, Manil. (1889), comments on our passage from this 
oration: " detto per prolessi." However, as he cites 2. 6, "Causa quae sit," as parallel, 
he seems not to use "prolessi" in the sense in which "prolepsis" is generally employed. 

» Lindskog, op. cit., p. 83, cites this passage as an example of prolepsis, although on 
p. 75 he defines prolepsis as the structure "ubi sxtbiectus enuntiati secundarii pro obiecto 
primarii ponitur" (the italics are mine). 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 65 


Varro R.R. iii. 1. 10: 

Haec ad te misi, recordatus de ea re sermones, quos de villa per- 
fecta habuissemus. 

This passage differs from the preceding passages in that the repeti- 
tion of de ea re, in the form de villa perfeda, makes it less inevitable to 
understand the dependent clause as relative. This awkward repeti- 
tion may well cause the hearer to keep his mind in suspense until he 
hears the subjunctive habuissemus. 


Cic. Pro Flacco 33. 81: 

Habetis causam inimicitiarum, qua causa inflammatus Decianus ad 
Laelium detulerit hanc opimam accusationem. 

Here the presence of qua causa, after inimicitiarum, has much the 
same effect as de villa perfeda had after de ea re in the preceding 
example. Inimicitiarum may seem to the hearer to define causas 
adequately, so that the qua causa clause comes as a surprise and 
causes him to hold his mind open until he hears the subjunctive. 


Ter. Hec. 351: 

Omnem rem narrabit, scio, continuo sola soli, 

Quae inter vos intervenerit, unde ortumst initium irae. 

(D). Antecedent in a prepositional phrase; pronoun a subjed: 

Cic. Ad Quint. Fratr. i. 2. 16: 

De singulis tamen rebus, quae cotidie gerantur, faciam te crebro 

In the last two passages the modifiers omnem and singulis affect the 
interpretation in much the same way (though to a less extent) as did 
the modifiers mentioned in the two preceding passages. Their 
presence makes it somewhat easier than it would otherwise be to 
regard the dependent clauses as interrogative. If the clauses are so 
interpreted, there will be an unusual, though not unnatural, sort of 
prolepsis in Quint. Fratr. The subject of the indirect question will 
be anticipated, not as the object of the introductory verb (as in the 
usual kind of prolepsis), but as the principal word of a phrase: "I 
shall keep you informed of all events: what events occur every day." 

66 A. F. Bratjnlich 


Plaut. Most. 969: 

Scio qua me eire oportet et quo uenerim noui locum. 

loqui P; "Pro loci ?" Lindsay. This passage differs from Adel. 572, 
cited above, in that the dependent clause precedes the noun with 
which it is connected. On this account it seems a little easier to 
regard the dependent clause in the present passage as interrogative 
than it was in the case of the Adel. example. 



Cic. Inv. ii. 9. 30: 

Quae res harum aliquam rem consequantur, faciles cognitu sunt. 
Edd., including Mueller, emend. 
Cic. Lael. 16. 56: 

Constituendi autem sunt qui sint in amicitia fines et quasi termini 

Matius in Cic. Fam. xi. 28. 2: 

Nota enim mihi sunt, quae in me post Caesaris mortem contulerint. 

Caes. B.G. vii. 3. 3: 

Nam quae Cenabi oriente sole gesta essent ante primam confectam 
vigiliam in finibus Arvernorum audita sunt. 

Doberenz (ed. 1857) comments: "Der Conjunktiv weil der Gedanke 
concessiv zu fassen: was doch erst . . . . , oder wiewohl es erst." 
Later editors generally agree. Bond-Walpole (1887) makes an 
additional comment: "If quae essent had been the conjunctive of 
indirect question, auditum est must have stood." This interpretation 
seems improbable to me. I know of just one edition in which the 
passage is explained as a confusion of the relative clause and the 
indirect question — that of Kraner-Dittenberger (1890). 
Livy xxi. 21. 1 : 

Hannibal Sagunto capto Carthaginem novam in hiberna concesserat, 
ibique auditis quae Romae quaeque Carthagine acta decretaque forent, 
seque non ducem solum sed etiam causam esse belli, .... Hispani 
generis milites convocat. 

It should be noted that in this example auditis is followed by an 
indirect statement with the infinitive, as well as by the gwae-clause. 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 67 

Livy xliv. 30. 12: 

Anicius praetor eo tempore Apolloniae auditis quae in Illyrico 
gererentur, praemissisque ad Appium litteris, .... triduo et ipse 
in castra venit. 

Sargeaunt, on Phormio 845, remarks that Livy often confuses the 
relative clause with the indicative and the dependent question with 
the subjunctive. Neither Kiihnast nor Riemann appears to have 
noticed such confusion. The few examples which I cite are taken 
from the Fiigner lexicon, s.v. audio. If this admirable lexicon could 
have been finished, my collection would be more complete. 

Sen. Epist. Mor. vi. 1. 4: 

Incredibilia sunt quae tulerim, cum me ferre non possim. 

Greg. H.F. 5. 36: 

Sed quae contra sacerdotes egerit, altius repetenda sunt. 

In these examples the number and gender of the principal verbs point 
to the interpretation of the dependent clauses as relative. On the 
other hand, the mood of the dependent clauses is appropriate to the 
indirect question and not to the relative clause. The examples 
appear, therefore, like those of the other two classes, to be mixtures of 
relative clause and indirect question. Cic. Inv., for example, seems 
to be a contamination of "Quae res ... . consequuntur faciles 
cognitu sunt" and "Quae res ... . consequantur, facile cognitu 
est." It should be noted, however, that there occur in Latin a 
number (in classical Latin apparently only a small number) of pas- 
sages in which an impersonal verb in an independent clause is 
assimilated in number and gender to some word or words in a depend- 
ent clause, but in which there is no possibility of confusion of indirect 
question and relative clause. Cf. Cic. Leg. Agr. ii. 37. 102, "Quae 
nobis designatis timebatis, ea ne accidere possent, consilio meo ac 
ratione provisa sunt." 1 It may, then, perhaps be doubted whether 
the occurrence of the examples of our Class III was a result or a 
cause of confusion of indirect question and relative clause. Because 
of the contemporary, or possibly earlier, occurrence of examples of our 
other two classes, the former supposition seems the more probable one. 

1 Cf. Schmalz, Lateinische Syntax, p. 658; Hofmann-Andresen on Cic. Fam. 
xi. 28. 2. 

68 A. F. Bkatjnlich 


There are other passages which resemble those quoted but in 
which the subjunctives may, with varying degrees of probability, be 
due to indirect discourse, to attraction, or to the influence of an 


(Class III) 

Cic. Phil. vi. 1. 1: 

Audita vobis esse arbiter, Quirites, quae sint acta in senate, quae 
fuerit cuiusque sententia. 

Livy xxix. 21. 1 : 

Alii, auditis quae Romae acta essent, in exilium Neapolim euntem 
forte in Q. Metellum, unum ex legatis, incidisse et ab eo Regium vi retrac- 
tem tradunt. 

Ter. Phorm. 876: 

Sed me censen potuisse omnia 
Intellegere extra ostium, intus quae inter sese ipsi egerint ? 

Sargeaunt considers this passage an example of confusion of indirect 
question and relative clause. See his note on vs. 845 (cited p. 70). 

Cato in Fronto, correspondence with M. Antonius i. 2 (near end) : 
Maiorum bene facta perlecta: deinde quae ego pro republica fecissem 


(Class II, B) 

Plaut. Bud. 353: 

Am. Ex malis multis metuque summo 
Capitalique ex periculo orbas auxilique opumque hue 
Recepit ad se venerea haec sacerdos me et Palaestram. 

Tr Sed istuc periclum perlubet quod fuerit vobis scire. 

(Class I) 

Plaut. Trin. 207: 

Quod quisque in animo habet aut habiturust sciunt: 
Sciunt id quod in aurem rex reginae dixerit; 
Sciunt quod Iuno fabulatast cum love; 
Quae neque futura neque sunt, tamen illi sciunt. 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 69 

Some editors change id quod to quid; so Ritschl (1884) (following 
Reiz and Hermann) and Freeman and Sloman (1890). Goetz- 
Schoell (1901) places t before id. Brix-Niemeyer, ed. 1888, com- 
ments: "Der potentiate Konjunktiv neben den Indikativen wenig 
wahrscheinlich, man schreibt iibrigens gewohnlich quid." In the 
Brix-Niemeyer ed. of 1907 the comment is: "Einmal im Potentialis 
'dixerit,' dann in strikter Behauptung 'fabulatast.' " 
Ter. Add. 236: 

Iamne enumerasti id quod ad te rediturum putes ? 

Spengel (1905) and others remark that rediturum putes is pleonastic, 
being equivalent to rediturum sit. The use of the subjunctive, 
however, is not explained. 

In the last four examples, if there is indirect discourse, it is of the 
"informal" kind. 1 The meaning would be, for Cato: "Then the 
deeds were read which, it was said, I had performed for the state." 
Rud. would mean : " I am very eager to know about the danger which, 
as you say, you have experienced." The meaning of Trin. would be: 
"They know that which, as they say, the king has whispered into the 
queen's ear." In Adel. 236 the idea of indirectness would be ex- 
pressed, pleonastically, both by the subjunctive mood and by the 
verb putare. 2 

In the following example I think it very probable that the sub- 
junctives are due to informal indirect discourse: Cic. Cato Maior 
xxi. 78. "Demonstrabantur mihi praeterea quae Socrates supremo 
vitae die de immortalitate animorum disseruisset, is qui esset 
omnium sapientissimus oraculo Apollinis iudicatus." It seems more 
likely that the mood of both disseruisset and esset is due to informal 
indirect discourse, than that "Demonstrabantur .... quae .... 
disseruisset" shows confusion of the indirect question and the 
relative clause, and that esset is attracted into the subjunctive. 

1 For informal indirect discourse, cf. Hale-Buck, Latin Grammar, } 535, la. 

! Cf. the use of dicere in the subjunctive in Cic. Phil. ii. 3. 7: "Litteras, quas me 
sibi misisse diceret, recitavit," and Verr. Act. II, v. 7. 17 : " Nominat iste servum, quern 
magistrum pecoris esse diceret " (mentioned by Frank, " The Influence of the Infinitive 
upon Verbs Subordinated to It," AJP, XXV [1904], p. 431, note). Similar, and prob- 
ably more frequent, is the pleonastic use of existimo and dico in clauses of quoted reason. 
Cf. Hale-Buck, § 535, 2a. 

70 A. F. Bkaunlich 


(Class I) 

Ter. Phorm. 845: 

Sed ego nunc mihi cesso, qui non umerum hunc onero pallio 
Atque hominem propero invenire, ut haec quae contigerint sciat. 

This example, because of the position of contigerint between sciat 
and ut, may very well be an instance of attraction. See Frank, 
Attraction of Mood in Early Latin (Lancaster, Pa., 1904), pp. 36 and 
46. Sargeaunt, however, remarks, ad loc: " The confusion between 
a relative clause with the indicative and a dependent question with 
the subjunctive is common and natural enough." 1 

(Class II, B) 

Cic. DeOra<.ii.61.248: 

Nunc exponamus genera ipsa summatim quae 
risum maxime moveant. 

(Class III) 

Varro Sententiae 137 (Riese, ed. Saturae, p. 271) : 

Non tarn quae prosint, quam quae attineant, considerentur. 

prosint Paris. 8542; prosunt A P. 
Livy xxv. 13. 9: 

Qui cum auditis quae ad Capuam agerentur, inter se comparassent, 
ut alter in Campaniam exercitum duceret, Fulvius .... Beneventi 
moenia est ingressus. 


(Class I) 

Lucil. 1329: 

Virtus est, homini scire id quod quaeque habeat res; 
Virtus, scire, homini rectum, utile, quid sit honestum. 

Cic. De Div. i. 38. 82: 

Neque nostra nihil interest scire ea quae eventura sint. 

> Elmer, in his edition (1895), comments: " The subjunctive is probably due to the 
influence of sciat; but it would be possible in such familiar speech to regard the quae as 
interrogative instead of relative: 'that he may know of all this, viz., what has hap- 
pened.' " The latter interpretation seems unnatural to me. 

The Indirect Question and the Relative Clause 71 

sint A V B, Christ, Baiter-Halm; sunt H, Mueller. The same 
passage occurs in ii. 49. 102 (with futura in place of eventura), where 
A and V have sunt, A 2 and B sint. Christ and Baiter-Halm read 
sint; Mueller sunt. 

Cic. De Div. ii. 51. 105: 

At nostra interest scire ea quae eventura sint. 

sint codd., Christ, Baiter-Halm; sunt Mueller. 
Cic. Phil. xiv. 3. 9: 

Refugit animus, patres conscripti, eaque dicere reformidat quae 
L. Antonius in Parmensium liberis et coniugibus effecerit. 

Cic. De Orat. iii. 6. 25: 

Sed priusquam ilia conor attingere, quibus orationem ornari atque 
illuminari putem, proponam breviter quid sentiam de universo genere 

Greg. Vit. Pair, xvii (5) : 

Sed nee hoc silere putavi, quod eidem de regibus Francorum a 
Domino sit ostensum. 

fuit (2. 3). 

Greg. De Virt. S. Iul. 36 (579. 6): 

Sed nee hoc silere puto, quod in nocte ilia sit gestum. 

(Class II, C) 

Vegetius, Mulom. iii. 1. 2: 

Causas itaque, ex quibus aegritudines generentur, et signa, per quae 
qualitas earundem possit agnosci, curas etiam, quarum medela sanitas 
revocetur, per ordinem indicare tentabimus. 

The probability that the subjunctive is due to the influence of the 
infinitive is stronger in some of these examples than in others. 1 

1 According to Frank, "The Influence of the Infinitive upon Verbs Subordinated to 
It," AJP, XXV, pp. 428 ff., this explanation would be more probably correct for Lucil. 
and the De Div. passages than for Phil, and De Orat. The former examples fall into 
Frank's Group I (see pp. 432, 433, 436 ff .) ; moreover, the subjunctives are in generaliz- 
ing determinative clauses (p. 444). De Oral., and probably Phil., belong to Frank's 
Group II (pp. 432 and 438 ff.); besides, the subjunctives are in particular (or "pre- 
cise") determinative clauses, and so, if Frank is right, are not very liable to "attrac- 
tion" (p. 444). 

I do not know what were the habits of Gregory and Vegetius with regard to the 
use of the subjunctive by " attraction." Bonnet, he Latin de Grigoire de Tours, p. 676, 
n. 3, mentions the example from S. Iul. as showing confusion of relative clause and 
indirect question. It seems to me that the Vegetius passage also is probably an 
example of confusion. 

72 A. F. Bbaunlich 

However, since "attraction" by the infinitive is of somewhat rare 
occurrence, 1 there is at least a possibility that the use of the subjunc- 
tive in every one of these passages is due to confusion between 
relative clause and indirect question. 



Somewhat akin to our examples of the confusion of indirect ques- 
tion and relative clause is the following passage 2 (Cic. Att. vii. 11. 3) : 

Per fortunas! quale tibi consilium Pompeii vide tur ? Hocquaero, 
quod urbem reliquerit. 

Tyrrell-Purser translates: "What I ask you is the meaning of his 
leaving." No explanation of the mood has ever, to my knowledge, 
been given. The use of the subjunctive seems to me to be due to 
confusion with the indirect question. What we have is a contamina- 
tion of the substantive quod-cl&use of fact, with the indicative, and 
an indirect question like the one in "Hoc quaero, cur urbem reli- 
querit" (I ask about this: namely, why he left the city). Or, to put 
the matter a little differently, the presence of quaero, a verb which 
is often accompanied by an indirect question, gives rise, in this 
instance, to the illogical use of the mood of the indirect question. 


For those of our passages which occur in poetry or in rhythmical 
prose writings the question suggests itself, whether the rhythm has 
any influence upon the mood use. Nine of our examples are in verse.* 
Three of these (AM. 236, Phorm. 876, 4 and Phorm. 845 4 ) could be 
changed to the indicative without any effect upon the meter. To 
change the subjunctives in Ter. AM. 572 and Lucil. 1329 to indica- 

1 Cf. Frank, op. tit., p. 446. 

* I am indebted to Professor Shipley for this example. 

•Plaut. Most. 969, Bud. 353, Trin. 207; Ter. Add. 572, Hec. 351, Phorm. 876, 
Adel. 236, Phorm. 845; Lucil. 1329. 

• For Terence's use of the ending -brunt in the third person plural, perfect indica- 
tive, see Lindsay, Latin Language (Oxford, 1904), p. 532. 

The Indieect Question and the Relative Clause 73 

tives would introduce hiatus. 1 In the other examples such a change 
would interfere still more seriously with the meter. It seems, then, 
as if metrical convenience had sometimes co-operated with the tend- 
ency to confuse the indirect question and the relative clause, to bring 
about the use of the subjunctive. 

Of the prose passages only those from Cicero have been con- 
sidered in this connection. In eleven 2 of our Cicero passages, the 
rhythm would be unchanged if the indicative were used; and in one the 
sentence rhythm would be affected, but not the clausula. 3 In two 
passages, Leg. Manil. 13. 38 and Verr. Act. II, iii. 40. 92, the sub- 
junctive yields a decidedly better clausula 4 than the indicative 
would yield. The Leg. Manil. passage is especially interesting, since, 
as Cicero himself says, 5 this oration is highly artistic. In one 
example, Rep. i. 13. 19, the subjunctive yields a clausula decidedly 
inferior to that which the indicative would have afforded. 6 But 
this example is in a question; and in questions, Professor Shipley tells 
me, Cicero is not so partial to the "clausulae verae" as he is in 
statements. In one passage, Phil. xiv. 3. 9, the subjunctive produces 
a clausula which is somewhat less often used than that which the 
indicative would produce. 7 Finally, in two passages the subjunctive 

1 There is probably no parallel for such an example of hiatus in either Terence 
or Lucilius. Cf. Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 209; Marx, ed. Lucilius (1904); Index 
Grammaticus Metricus, s.v. "hiatus." 

s The passages are: De Oral. ii. 39. 166; Fam. iii. 10. 11; Leg. Agr. i. 8. 25; Quint. 
Fratr. i. 2. 16; Inv. ii. 9. 30 ; Lael. 16.56; 1; the three passages from De Div. ; 
De orat. iii. 6. 25. 

' Pro Flacco 33. 81. 

« In both Leg. Manil. and Verr. the subjunctive yields I - — - , Zielinski's 

V2S ("Das Clauselgesetz," Philologus, Supplementband IX [1904], 652), one of the 
"clausulae verae" (op. cit. pp. 603 ff.). For the clausula which would result from the 

use of the indicative ( | ), see op. cit., pp. 604 ff. and 729 ff. This is one 

of Zielinski's "clausulae selectae" and is used to produce a heavy effect. Such an 
effect would not be desirable in our two passages, as the concluding words are not 

« Orator 102. Cf. also Zielinski, Der constructive Rhythmus in Ciceros Reden 
(Leipzig, 1914), p. 68. 

• The subjunctive yields one of the "clausulae pessimae" (P. 2). The indicative 
would have yielded one of the verae (V2-y, "Clauselgesetz," p. 652). 

'The subjunctive gives us L217 ("Clauselgesetz," p. 658), while the indica- 
tive would have given Ll'-y (p. 620). The former clausula occurs 32 times in the 
Philippics and 1 19 times in all the orations. The latter occurs 44 times in the Philippics 
and 242 times in all the orations (loci citati) . 

74 A. F. Braunlich 

yields clausulae which occur somewhat more often than those which 
would have resulted from the use of the indicative. 1 

It appears, then, that, for the most part, Cicero's feeling for 
rhythm has nothing to do with the occurrence of the subjunctive in 
our examples. In a few cases, however, the tendency 2 to use certain 
rhythms may have co-operated with the tendency to confuse indirect 
question and relative clause, to bring about the use of the sub- 


From the passages cited these conclusions are, it seems to me, to 
be drawn: The indirect question and the relative clause were occa- 
sionally confused by Latin authors, and, among the rest, by Cicero. 
Such confusion is never a just reason for suspecting a manuscript 
reading. Mueller's theory that clauses lying midway between indi- 
rect questions and relative clauses are never used after demonstrative 
pronouns (see p. 61) 3 is disproved by the examples of our Class I. 

Frances Shimeb School 
Mootjt Carroll, III. 

1 In Phil. ii. 21. 50 either the subjunctive or the indicative would yield a " clausula 
vera." The subjunctive gives us clausula V2S (" Clauselgesetz," p. 652); the indi- 
cative would give us VIS (p. 615). The former clausula occurs 133 times in the 
Philippics and 666 times in all the orations. The latter clausula occurs 36 times in 
the Philippics and 256 times in all the orations. In De Oral. ii. 61. 248 the clausula 
which the subjunctive gives us is Ll 3 y (p. 620). The indicative would have given hiSr) 
(p. 710). The former clausula occurs 176 times in the orations; the latter 9 times. 

2 For the psychology of Cicero's use of rhythm cf. Zielinski, Der constructive 
Rhythmus, pp. 13 ff. Cicero did not, of course, say to himself: "In order to secure a 
good clausula I will confuse the indirect question and the relative clause." He was 
not conscious of preferring certain clausulae to others (see Der constructive Rhythmus, 
p. 15), and in all probability he was not conscious of confusing the indirect question 
and the relative clause. Otherwise, by employing a different word-order — in Leg. 
Manil., "quae itinera" in place of "itinera quae" — or by making some other easy 
change, he could have produced the desired rhythmical effect while using a regular 
indirect question. 

» Mueller made this observation in 1864 (see p. 61, n. 2), but was still influenced by 
it in his edition of Cicero's works. Cf., e.g., his critical notes on De Div. i. 38. 82 and 
on Rose. Am. 34. 95.